This case involves the application of copyright law to the
vast
world of the internet and internet search engines. The plaintiff,
Leslie Kelly, is a professional photographer who has copyrighted
many of his images of the American West. Some of
these images are located on Kelly's web site or other web sites
with which Kelly has a license agreement. The defendant, Arriba
Soft Corp.,1 operates
an internet search enginethat displays its results in the form of small pictures
rather than the more usual form of text. Arriba obtained its database of
pictures by copying images from other web sites. By clicking on
one of these small pictures, called "thumbnails," the user
can then view a large version of that same picture within the
context of the Arriba web page.

When Kelly discovered that his photographs were part of
Arriba's
search engine database, he brought a claim against Arriba
for copyright infringement. The district court found that
Kelly had established a prima facie case of copyright infringement
based on Arriba's unauthorized reproduction and
display of Kelly's works, but that this reproduction and display
constituted a non-infringing "fair use " under Section 107
of the Copyright Act. Kelly appeals that decision, and we affirm
in part and reverse in part. The creation and use of the thumbnails
in the search engine is a fair use, but the display of
the larger image is a violation of Kelly's exclusive right to publicly
display his works. We remand with instructions to determine
damages and the need for an injunction.

I.

The search engine at issue in this case is unconventional in
that
it displays the results of a user's query as"thumbnail" images.
When a user wants to search the internet for information on
a certain topic, he or she types a search term into a search
engine, which then produces a list of web sites that have
information relating to the search term. Normally, the list of results is in text format. The Arriba search engine,
however, produces
its list of results as small pictures. To
provide this functionality, Arriba developed a computer program
that "crawls" the web looking for images to index. This
crawler downloads full-sized copies of the images onto Arriba's
server. The program then uses these copies to generate smaller,
lower-resolution thumbnails of the images. Once the
thumbnails are created, the program deletes the full-sized originals
from the server. Although a user could copy these thumbnails
to his computer or disk, he cannot increase the resolution
of the thumbnail; any enlargement would result in a
loss of clarity of the image.

The second component of the Arriba program occurs when
the
user double-clicks on the thumbnail. From January 1999 to
June 1999, clicking on the thumbnail produced the"Images Attributes"
page. This page contained the original full-sized image
imported directly from the originating web site, along with
text describing the size of the image, a link to the originating web site, the Arriba banner, and Arriba
advertising. The
process of importing an image from another web site is called
inline linking. The image imported from another web site
is displayed as though it is part of the current web page, surrounded
by the current web page's text and advertising. As a result, although the image in Arriba's Image Attributes page
was
directly from the originating web site, and not copied onto
Arriba's site, the user typically would not realize that the image
actually resided on another web site.

From July 1999 until sometime after August 2000, the
results
page contained thumbnails accompanied by two links: "Source"
and "Details." The "Details " link produced a screen similar
to the Images Attributes page but with a thumbnail rather
than the full-sized image. Alternatively, by clicking on the
"Source" link or the thumbnail from the results page, the site
produced two new windows on top of the Arriba page. The
window in the forefront contained the full-sized image, imported
directly from the originating web site. Underneath that
was another window displaying the originating web page. This
technique is known as framing. The image from a second web
site is viewed within a frame that is pulled into the primary site's
web page.2

In January 1999, Arriba's crawler visited web sites that
contained
Kelly's photographs. The crawler copied thirty-five of
Kelly's images to the Arriba database. Kelly had never given
permission to Arriba to copy his images and objected when
he found out that Arriba was using them. Arriba deleted the
thumbnails of images that came from Kelly's own web sites
and placed those sites on a list of sites that it would not crawl
in the future. Several months later, Arriba received Kelly's
complaint of copyright infringement, which identified other
images of his that came from third-party web sites. Arriba
subsequently deleted those thumbnails and placed those
third-party sites on a list of sites that it would not crawl in
the future.

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of
Arriba.
Although the court found that Kelly had established a
prima facie case of infringement based on Arriba's reproduction and
display of Kelly's photographs, the court ruled that
such actions by Arriba constituted fair use. The court determined
that two of the fair use factors weighed heavily in Arriba's
favor. Specifically, the court found that the character and
purpose of Arriba's use was significantly transformative and
the use did not harm the market for or value of Kelly's works.
Kelly now appeals this decision.

II.

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo
.3 We also review the court's finding of fair use, which is a mixed question
of
law and fact, by this same standard.4 "In
doing so, we must balance the nonexclusive
factors set out in 17 U.S.C. § 107."5

This case involves two distinct actions by Arriba that warrant
analysis.
The first action consists of the reproduction of Kelly's
images to create the thumbnails and the use of those thumbnails
in Arriba's search engine. The second action involves
the display of Kelly's images through the inline linking and
framing processes when the user clicks on the thumbnails. Because
these actions are distinct types of potential infringement,
we will analyze them separately.

A.

An owner of a copyright has the exclusive right to reproduce,
distribute,
and publicly display copies of the work.6 To establish
a claim of copyright infringement by reproduction, the
plaintiff must show ownership of the copyright and copying by
the defendant.7 As
to the thumbnails, there is no dispute that
Kelly owned the copyright to the images and that Arriba
copied those images. Therefore, Kelly established a prima
facie case of copyright infringement.

A claim of copyright infringement is subject to certain statutory
exceptions,
including the fair use exception. 8 This exception "permits courts to avoid rigid
application of the copyright statute when,
on occasion, it would stifle the very creativity which that law is designed to foster."9
The statute sets
out four factors to consider in determining whether the use
in a particular case is a fair use.10 We
must balance these factors, in light of the
objectives of copyright law, rather than view
them as definitive or determinative tests. 11 We now turn to
the four fair use factors.

1. Purpose and character of the use.

The Supreme Court has rejected the proposition that a commercial
use
of the copyrighted material ends the inquiry under this
factor.12 Instead, [t]he central purpose of this investigation is to
see . . . whether the new work merely
supersede[s ] the objects of the original
creation, or instead adds something new,
with a further purpose or different character,
altering the first with new expression, meaning,
or message; it asks, in other words, whether
and to what extent the new work is transformative.13 The more transformative the new work, the less
important the other factors, including commercialism, become. 14

There is no dispute that Arriba operates its web site for
commercial
purposes and that Kelly's images were part of Arriba's
search engine database. As the district court found, while
such use of Kelly's images was commercial, it was more
incidental and less exploitative in nature than more traditional types
of commercial use.15 Arriba
was neither using Kelly's images to directly
promote its web site nor trying to profit by
selling Kelly's images. Instead, Kelly's images were among
thousands of images in Arriba's search engine database. Because
the use of Kelly's images was not highly exploitative,
the commercial nature of the use only slightly weighs
against a finding of fair use.

The second part of the inquiry as to this factor involves the
transformative
nature of the use. We must determine if Arriba's use
of the images merely superseded the object of the originals
or instead added a further purpose or different character.16 We find that Arriba's use of Kelly's
images for its thumbnails was transformative.

Despite the fact that Arriba made exact replications of
Kelly's
images, the thumbnails were much smaller, lower-resolution images
that served an entirely different function than
Kelly's original images. Kelly's images are artistic works
used for illustrative purposes. His images are used to portray
scenes from the American West in an esthetic manner. Arriba's
use of Kelly's images in the thumbnails is unrelated to
any esthetic purpose. Arriba's search engine functions as a tool
to help index and improve access to images on the internet and
their related web sites. In fact, users are unlikely to enlarge
the thumbnails and use them for artistic purposes because
the thumbnails are of much lower resolution than the originals; any enlargement results in a significant loss of clarity
of
the image, making them inappropriate as display material. Kelly
asserts that because Arriba reproduced his exact images
and added nothing to them, Arriba's use cannot be transformative.
It is true that courts have been reluctant to find
fair use when an original work is merely retransmitted in a
different medium.17 Those
cases are inapposite, however, because the
resulting use of the copyrighted work in those cases
was the same as the original use. For instance, reproducing music
CD's into computer MP3 format does not change the
fact that both formats are used for entertainment purposes. Likewise,
reproducing news footage into a different format does
not change the ultimate purpose of informing the public about
current affairs.

Even in Infinity Broadcast Corp. v. Kirkwood,18
where the retransmission
of radio broadcasts over telephone lines was for
the purpose of allowing advertisers and radio stations to check
on the broadcast of commercials or on-air talent, there was
nothing preventing listeners from subscribing to the service for
entertainment purposes. Even though the intended purpose
of the retransmission may have been different from the
purpose of the original transmission, the result was that people
could use both types of transmissions for the same purpose. This
case involves more than merely a retransmission of Kelly's
images in a different medium. Arriba's use of the images serves a different function than Kelly's use-improving
access to information on the internet versus artistic expression. Furthermore, it would be unlikely that anyone would use
Arriba's thumbnails for illustrative or esthetic purposes because enlarging them sacrifices their clarity. Because
Arriba's use is not superseding Kelly's use but, rather, has created a different purpose for the images, Arriba's use is
transformative. Comparing this case to two recent cases in the Ninth and First Circuits reemphasizes the functionality
distinction. In Worldwide Church of God v. Philadelphia Church of God,19 we held that copying a religious book to create a new book
for use by a different church was not transformative.20 The second church's use of the book merely superseded the object
of the original book, which was to serve religious practice and education. The court noted that "where the use is for the same
intrinsic purpose as [the copyright holder's] . . . such use seriously weakens a claimed fair use."21

On the other hand, in Nunez v. Caribbean International
News Corp.,22 the
First Circuit found that copying a photograph that was intended to be used in a modeling portfolio
and using it instead in a news article was a transformative use.23 By putting a copy of the photograph in the
newspaper, the work was transformed into news, creating a new meaning or purpose for the work. The use of Kelly's images in Arriba's
search engine is more analogous to the situation in Nunez because Arriba has created a new purpose for the images and
is not simply superseding Kelly's purpose.

The Copyright Act was intended to promote
creativity, thereby benefitting the artist and the public alike. To preserve the potential future use of artistic works for purposes of
teaching, research, criticism, and news reporting, Congress made the fair use exception.24
Arriba's
use of Kelly's images promotes the goals of the Copyright Act and the fair use
exception. The thumbnails do not stifle artistic creativity because they are not used for illustrative or artistic purposes and
therefore do not supplant the need for the originals. In addition, they benefit the public by enhancing information gathering
techniques on the internet.

In Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc. v. Bleem,25
we held that when Bleem copied "screen shots" from Sony computer games and used them in its own advertising, it was
a fair use.26 In
finding that the first factor weighed in favor of Bleem, we noted that "comparative advertising redounds
greatly to the purchasing public's benefit with very little corresponding loss to the integrity of Sony's copyrighted
material."27 Similarly, this first factor
weighs in favor of Arriba due to the public benefit of the search engine and the minimal loss
of integrity to Kelly's images.

2. Nature of the copyrighted work.

"Works that are creative in nature are closer to the core of
intended copyright protection than are more fact-based works."28 Photographs
used for illustrative purposes, such as Kelly's, are generally creative in nature. The fact that a work
is published or unpublished also is a critical element of its nature.29 Published
works are more likely to qualify as fair use because the first appearance of the artist's expression has
already occurred.30 Kelly's
images appeared on the internet before Arriba used them in its search image. When
considering both of these elements, we find that this factor only slightly weighs in favor of Kelly.

3. Amount and substantiality of portion used .
"While wholesale copying does not preclude fair use per se, copying an entire work militates against a finding of fair use."31
However, the extent of permissible copying varies with the purpose and character of the use.32
If
the secondary user only copies as much as is necessary for his or her intended
use, then this factor will not weigh against him or her. This factor will neither weigh for nor against either party
because, although Arriba did copy each of Kelly's images as a whole, it was reasonable to do so in light of Arriba's use of
the images. It was necessary for Arriba to copy the entire image to allow users to recognize the image and decide
whether to pursue more information about the image or the originating web site. If Arriba only copied part of the image,
it would be more difficult to identify it, thereby reducing the usefulness of the visual search engine.

4. Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value
of the copyrighted work.

This last factor requires courts to consider "not only the
extent of market harm caused by the particular actions of the alleged infringer, but also `whether unrestricted and
widespread conduct of the sort engaged in by the defendant . . . would result in a substantially adverse impact on the potential
market for the original.' "33 A
transformative work is less likely to have an adverse impact on the market of the original
than a work that merely supersedes the copyrighted work.34 Kelly's images are related to several potential
markets. One purpose of the photographs is to attract internet users to his web site, where he sells advertising space as well as books
and travel packages. In addition, Kelly could sell or license his photographs to other web sites or to a stock photo
database, which then could offer the images to its customers. Arriba's use of Kelly's images in its thumbnails does not
harm the market for Kelly's images or the value of his images. By showing the thumbnails on its results page when
users entered terms related to Kelly's images, the search engine would guide users to Kelly's web site rather than away
from it. Even if users were more interested in the image itself rather than the information on the web page, they would still
have to go to Kelly's site to see the full-sized image. The thumbnails would not be a substitute for the full-sized images
because when the thumbnails are enlarged, they lose their clarity. If a user wanted to view or download a quality image,
he or she would have to visit Kelly's web site. 35 This would hold true whether the thumbnails are solely in Arriba's
database or are more widespread and found in other search engine databases. Arriba's use of Kelly's images also would not harm Kelly's
ability to sell or license his full-sized images. Arriba does not sell or license its thumbnails to other
parties. Anyone who downloaded the thumbnails would not be successful selling the full-sized images because of the low-resolution of the
thumbnails. There would be no way to view, create, or sell a clear, full-sized image without going to Kelly's web
sites. Therefore, Arriba's creation and use of the thumbnails does not harm the market for or value of Kelly's
images. This factor weighs in favor of Arriba.

Having considered the four fair use factors and found that
two weigh in favor of Arriba, one is neutral, and one weighs slightly in favor of Kelly, we conclude that Arriba's use of
Kelly's images as thumbnails in its search engine is a fair use.

B.

The second part of our analysis concerns Arriba's inline
linking to and framing of Kelly's full-sized images. This use of Kelly's images does not entail copying them
but, rather, importing them directly from Kelly's web site. Therefore, it cannot be copyright infringement based on the reproduction
of copyrighted works as in the previous discussion. Instead, this use of Kelly's images infringes upon Kelly's exclusive
right to "display the copyrighted work publicly."36

1. Public display right.

In order for Kelly to prevail, Arriba must have
displayed Kelly's work without his permission and made that display available to the public. The Copyright Act defines
"display" as showing a copy of a work.37 This would seem to preclude Kelly from arguing that showing his original images
was an infringement. However, the Act defines a copy as a material object in which a work is fixed, including the
material object in which the work is first fixed.38 The legislative history of the Act makes clear that "[s]ince`copies' are
defined as including the material object `in which the work is first fixed,' the right of public display applies to original
works of art as well as to reproductions of them."39 By inline linking and framing Kelly's images, Arriba is showing
Kelly's original works without his permission.

The legislative history goes on to state that "
`display' would include the projection of an image on a screen or other surface by any method, the transmission of an image by
electronic or other means, and the showing of an image on a cathode ray tube, or similar viewing apparatus connected with any
sort of information storage and retrieval system."40 This language indicates that showing Kelly's images on a computer
screen would constitute a display.

The Act's definition of the term"publicly"
encompasses a transmission of a display of a work to the public "by means of any device or process, whether the members of the
public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time
or at different times."41 A
display is public even if there is no proof that any of the potential recipients was operating his
receiving apparatus at the time of the transmission. 42 By making Kelly's images available on its web site, Arriba is
allowing public access to those images. The ability to view those images is unrestricted to anyone with a computer and internet
access.

The legislative history emphasizes the broad nature of the
display right, stating that "[e]ach and every method by which the images or sounds comprising a performance or display are
picked up and conveyed is a `transmission,' and if the transmission reaches the public in [any] form, the case comes
within the scope of [the public performance and display rights] of section 106."43
Looking
strictly at the language of the Act and its legislative history, it appears that when Arriba
imports Kelly's images into its own web page, Arriba is infringing upon Kelly's public display right. The limited case
law in this area supports this conclusion. No cases have addressed the issue of whether inline linking
or framing violates a copyright owner's public display rights. However, in Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Webbworld, Inc.,44
the court found that the owner of an internet site infringed a magazine publisher's copyrights by displaying copyrighted
images on its web site.45 The
defendant, Webbworld, downloaded material from certain newsgroups, discarded the text
and retained the images, and made those images available to its internet subscribers.46
Playboy
owned copyrights to many of the images Webbworld retained and displayed. The court
found that Webbworld violated Playboy's exclusive right to display its copyrighted works, noting that allowing
subscribers to view copyrighted works on their computer monitors while online was a display.47
The
court also discounted the fact that no image existed until the subscriber downloaded it.
The image existed in digital form, which made it available for decoding as an image file by the subscriber, who could view
the images merely by visiting the Webbworld site. 48 Although Arriba does not download Kelly's images to
its own server but, rather, imports them directly from other web sites, the situation is analogous to Webbworld. By
allowing the public to view Kelly's copyrighted works while visiting Arriba's web site, Arriba created a public display of
Kelly's works. Arriba argues that Kelly offered no proof that anyone ever saw his images and, therefore, there can be no
display. We dispose of this argument, as did the court in Webbworld, because Arriba made the images available to any
viewer that merely visited Arriba's site. Allowing this capability is enough to establish an infringement; the fact that no
one saw the images goes to the issue of damages, not liability. In a similar case, Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Russ
Hardenburgh, Inc.,49 the
court held that the owner of an electronic bulletin board system infringed Playboy's copyrights by
displaying copyrighted images on its system.50 The
bulletin board is a central system that stores information, giving home computer users the opportunity to submit information to the
system (upload) or retrieve information from the system (download). In this case, the defendant encouraged its
subscribers to upload adult photographs, screened all submitted images, and moved some of the images into files from which
general subscribers could download them.51 Because these actions resulted in subscribers being able to download
copyrighted images, it violated Playboy's right of public display.52
Again, the court noted that adopting a policy that allowed the defendants to place images in files available to subscribers
entailed a display.53 This
conclusion indicates that it was irrelevant whether anyone actually saw the
images. Both of these cases highlighted the fact that the defendants took an active role in creating the display of the
copyrighted images. The reason for this emphasis is that several other cases held that operators of bulletin board systems and
internet access providers were not liable for copyright infringement. 54 These cases distinguished direct
infringement from contributory infringement and held that where the defendants did not take any affirmative action that resulted in copying
copyrighted works, but only maintained a system that acted as a passive conduit for third parties' copies, they were not liable
for direct infringement.

The courts in Webbworld and Hardenburgh specifically
noted that the defendants did more than act as mere providers of access or passive conduits.55
In
Webbworld, the web site sold images after actively trolling the internet for them and
deciding which images to provide to subscribers. The court stated that "Webbworld exercised total dominion over the
content of its site and the product it offered its clientele."56
Likewise, in Hardenburgh, the court found that by encouraging subscribers to upload images and then screening those
images and selecting ones to make available for downloading, the defendants were more than passive conduits.
57 Like the defendants in Webbworld and Hardenburgh, Arriba is directly liable for infringement. Arriba actively
participated in displaying Kelly's images by trolling the web, finding Kelly's images, and then having its program inline
link and frame those images within its own web site. Without this program, users would not have been able to view Kelly's
images within the context of Arriba's site. Arriba acted as more than a passive conduit of the images by establishing a
direct link to the copyrighted images. Therefore, Arriba is liable for publicly displaying Kelly's copyrighted images
without his permission.

2. Fair use of full-sized images.

The last issue we must address is whether Arriba's display
of Kelly's full-sized images was a fair use. Although Arriba did not address the use of the full-sized images in its fair use
argument, the district court considered such use in its analysis, and we will consider Arriba's fair use defense here.
Once again, to decide whom the first factor, the purpose and character of the use, favors, we must determine whether
Arriba's use of Kelly's images was transformative. 58 Unlike the use of the images for the thumbnails, displaying Kelly's
full-sized images does not enhance Arriba's search engine. The images do not act as a means to access other information
on the internet but, rather, are likely the end product themselves. Although users of the search engine could link from
the full-sized image to Kelly's web site, any user who is solely searching for images would not need to do so. Because
the full-sized images on Arriba's site act primarily as illustrations or artistic expression and the search engine would
function the same without them, they do not have a purpose different from Kelly's use of them.

Not only is the purpose the same, but Arriba did not add
new expression to the images to make them transformative.59 Placing the images in a "frame" or locating them near text
that specifies the size and originating web site is not enough to create new expression or meaning for the images. In
sum, Arriba's full-sized images superseded the object of Kelly's images.60 Because
Arriba has not changed the purpose or character of the use of the images, the first factor favors
Kelly.

The analysis of the second
factor, the nature of the copyrighted work, is the same as in the previous fair use discussion
because Kelly's images are still the copyrighted images at issue. Therefore, as
before, this factor slightly weighs in favor of Kelly. The third fair use factor turns on the amount of the work
displayed and the reasonableness of this amount in light of the purpose for the display.61
Arriba
displayed the full images, which cuts against a finding of fair use. And while it was
necessary to provide whole images to suit Arriba's purpose of giving users access to the full-sized images without having to
go to another site, such a purpose is not legitimate, as we noted above.
Therefore, it was not reasonable to copy the full-sized display. The third factor favors Kelly.

The fourth factor often depends upon how transformative
the new use is compared to the original use. A work that is very transformative will often be in a different market from
the original work and therefore is less likely to cause harm to the original work's market.62
Works
that are not transformative, however, have the same purpose as the original work and
will often have a negative effect on the original work's market.63 As discussed in the previous fair use analysis, Kelly's
markets for his images include using them to attract advertisers and buyers to his web site, and selling or licensing the images
to other web sites or stock photo databases. By giving users access to Kelly's full-sized images on its own web
site, Arriba harms all of Kelly's markets. Users will no longer have to go to Kelly's web site to see the full-sized images, thereby
deterring people from visiting his web site. In addition, users would be able to download the full-sized images from
Arriba's site and then sell or license those images themselves, reducing Kelly's opportunity to sell or license his own
images. If the display of Kelly's images became widespread across other web sites, it would reduce the number of visitors
to Kelly's web site even further and increase the chance of others exploiting his images. These actions would result in
substantial adverse effects to the potential markets for Kelly's original works. For this reason, the fourth factor weighs
heavily in favor of Kelly.

In conclusion, all of the fair use factors weigh in favor
of Kelly. Therefore, the doctrine of fair use does not sanction Arriba's display of Kelly's images through the inline linking
or framing processes that puts Kelly's original images within the context of Arriba's web site.

CONCLUSION

We hold that Arriba's reproduction of Kelly's images
for use as thumbnails in Arriba's search engine is a fair use under the Copyright Act. We also hold that Arriba's display
of Kelly's full-sized images is not a fair use and thus violates Kelly's exclusive right to publicly display his copyrighted
works. The district court's opinion is affirmed as to the thumbnails and reversed as to the display of the full-sized
images. We remand with instructions to determine damages for the copyright infringement and the necessity for an
injunction. Each party shall bear its own costs and fees on appeal.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in
part, and REMANDED.

_________________________________________________________________

1 Arriba Soft has changed its name
since the start of this litigation. It is now known as "Ditto.com."

2 Currently, when a user clicks on
the thumbnail, a window of the home page of the image appears on top of the Arriba
page. There is no window with just the image.

10 The four factors are: (1) the
purpose and character of the use, including whether
such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality
of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;
and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
the copyrighted work. 17 U.S.C. § 107.

24 17 U.S.C. § 107 ("[T]he fair
use of a copyrighted work . . . for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching
(including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an
infringement of copyright."); See also Campbell, 510 U.S. at 577.

29 Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters.,
471 U.S. 539, 564 (1985) (noting that the scope of fair use is narrower with respect to
unpublished works because the author's right to control the first public
appearance of his work weighs against the use of his work before its release).

34 See id. at 591 (stating that a
work that supersedes the object of the original serves as a market replacement for it, making it likely that market
harm will occur, but when the second use is transformative, market substitution is less certain).

35 We do not suggest that the
inferior display quality of a reproduction is in any way dispositive, or will always assist an alleged infringer in
demonstrating fair use. In this case, however, it is extremely unlikely that
users would download thumbnails for display purposes, as the quality full-size versions are easily accessible from Kelly's web
sites. In addition, we note that in the unique context of photographic images, the quality of the reproduction may matter more than in other fields of
creative endeavor. The appearance of photographic images accounts for virtually their entire esthetic
value.

46 Id. at 549-50. Interestingly, the
images were retained as both full-sized images and thumbnails. A subscriber could view several thumbnails on
one page and then view a full-sized image by clicking on the thumbnail. However, both the thumbnail and full-sized image were copied onto
Webbworld's server so no inline linking or framing was used.

47 Id. at 552.

48 Id.

49 982 F. Supp. 503
(N.D. Ohio 1997).

50 Id. at 513.

51 Id.

52 Id.

53 Id.

54 See e.g. Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Netcom On-Line CommunicationServs., Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1361,
1372-73 (N.D.Cal. 1995) (holding that operator of a computer bulletin board system that forwarded messages
from subscribers to other subscribers was not liable for displaying copyrighted works because it took no role in controlling the content of the
information but only acted as passive conduit of the information); Marobie-FL, Inc. v. Nat'l. Ass'n of Fire and Equip. Distribs., 983 F. Supp.
1167, 1176-79 (N.D. Ill. 1997) (holding that company that provided a host computer for web page and access link to internet users was not directly
liable for copyright infringement when administrator of web page posted copyrighted works on the page, because it only provided the means to
display the works but did not engage in the activity itself); Costar Group Inc. v. Loopnet, Inc., 164 F. Supp. 2d 688, 695-96 (D. Md. 2001) (holding that
operator of a web site that hosted real estate listings and photos was not directly liable for copyright infringement because it did not actively
participate in copying or displaying the images).